Link storage to docking points

[aceface]

I think that you should be able to link a storage with c and v to a docking module (turret or fixed).

If you link a storage to a docking module, the storage will drain the docked ship.

If you link the dock to a storage, the docked ship's storages will drain the storage.

@NeonSturm

 

[Mariux]

yus pls

 

[FunnyBunny14]

You should of course have an option on your ship to switch that function off. That should be enough to prevent griefing.

And yes, this is a necessity. And I'm not talking about the option, I am talking about the ability to transfer storage between docked ships (or ships docked to stations).

 

[NeonSturm]

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) << Storage-slave
Storage-slave >> (Dock == Core) >> Storage-master

StorageSlave could have a link-through option to copy the behavior of the master, allowing the master to access the slave's slave's

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) [<< Storage-slave link-through] << Storage-slave-slave
[optional, can be toggled on|off to allow|prevent access of (master <> slave-slave)]

 

[aceface]

can you frikken just speak english and not in code/math - PLEASE!!!!

 

[FunnyBunny14]

@NeonSturm , you should reeally include a 'NeonSturm for dummies' section in which you say everything you just said in code in normal English. Although, to be fair @aceface , that was neither code nor math. He was using words and symbols to show graphically what was happening.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Yes, The ability to transfer items between ships both ways is a much needed feature.

 

[aceface]

i went on his profile and literally 9 out of 10 messages were like that

 

[Crimson-Artist]

not sure if this has been confirmed by the devs or not but yeah. most definitely needed

 

[aceface]

He´s a logical guy, without people like him Starmade would stay in a game with many colored lights and pointless.

If he proposes something, offers an explanation to fully understand their point of view in addition to a possible solution to the problem of dealing with the thread. We would need more people like him in the forums.

And of course I'm not saying logic people is better tha no logicals or something like that, for a project grow healthy we need a proper ratio between "logical people" and "sensing people".

i know, but like schema, he needs to decode some things

 

[srs008]

just voting yes to a very good idea.

 

[ltmauve]

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) << Storage-slave
Storage-slave >> (Dock == Core) >> Storage-master

StorageSlave could have a link-through option to copy the behavior of the master, allowing the master to access the slave's slave's

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) [<< Storage-slave link-through] << Storage-slave-slave
[optional, can be toggled on|off to allow|prevent access of (master <> slave-slave)]

can you frikken just speak english and not in code/math - PLEASE!!!!

What the prototype AI said was that if you have a storage as a slave of a docking module, it will attempt to put the items into whatever ship docks there.
If you have a storage as a slave of a ship core, then when you dock, it will attempt to put the items into storage that is the master of that docking port.

 

[max stripe]

I think that you should be able to link a storage with c and v to a docking module (turret or fixed). When this is done the storage will drain the inventory of whatever is docked to that docking module.

i was just thinking of this....
an agree for you sir

 

[aceface]

i was just thinking of this....
an agree for you sir

for you to![DOUBLEPOST=1414404934,1414404893][/DOUBLEPOST]

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) << Storage-slave
Storage-slave >> (Dock == Core) >> Storage-master

StorageSlave could have a link-through option to copy the behavior of the master, allowing the master to access the slave's slave's

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) [<< Storage-slave link-through] << Storage-slave-slave
[optional, can be toggled on|off to allow|prevent access of (master <> slave-slave)]

alright i'll edit the suggestion to this! :D

 

[NeonSturm]

My problem is just that it requires more time to do pictures than to do the same with ASCII symbols (what you know as "code/math" letters)

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) << Storage-slave
Storage-slave >> (Dock == Core) >> Storage-master

Two-way

Storage-master << (Dock ==

What the dock is to the dock-storage

== Core) << Storage-slave

Is the core to the docked ship's storage

Storage <> Dock
Core <> Storage​

Core, NOT Dock for docked's storage, because you can't link to another entitie's blocks.

Storage-master << (Dock == Core) [<< Storage-slave link-through] << Storage-slave-slave

Is equal to

Storage-master << Storage-slave​

and

Storage-master << Storage-slave link-through << Storage-slave-slave​

logically,

but not to

Storage-master << Storage-slave non-link-through << Storage-slave-slave​

See how long this got.

Personally I dislike things in long which can be said short.
Because my things are "mind-dumps" :p they would produce rather long text which I dislike myself.​

Maybe you could make me like details much more if you would at least reply and give feedback in treads where I spent hours on the OP - hours for descriptions.

But since you (most forum members) don't show me that you appreciate that effort when I do it, I am discouraged from doing it.​